Yes, in the sense of whether they'd move or not, not in the sense of 'well you should have just walked around the block and why didn't you eat in the restaurant?' That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked, which it seems people don't grasp. It's a general question. Is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need just because you can?

Well yes - everyone hates circling to find a spot, so wouldn't it therefore be more polite to vacate one that you're occupying that you have no need of?

Eating in the car was just fine for this; it was a McDonald's breakfast muffin, not something you have to sit down to a table to eat with a knife and fork. Again though, wasn't part of the question I asked so I'm baffled as to why people are picking on my decision to do so.

Yes, in the sense of whether they'd move or not, not in the sense of 'well you should have just walked around the block and why didn't you eat in the restaurant?' That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked, which it seems people don't grasp. It's a general question. Is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need just because you can?

Well yes - everyone hates circling to find a spot, so wouldn't it therefore be more polite to vacate one that you're occupying that you have no need of?

Eating in the car was just fine for this; it was a McDonald's breakfast muffin, not something you have to sit down to a table to eat with a knife and fork. Again though, wasn't part of the question I asked so I'm baffled as to why people are picking on my decision to do so.

But the distance is germane to the discussion - it's different if there's a load of other parks nearby as to whether it's more or less inconsiderate. I get that you have mobility issues, but if we are talking about a theoretical situation then that doesn't matter either. I really haven't seen anyone imply you are lazy, they are just saying what would go into their decision making process.

The question is simply "is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need to be using when someone else would like to/may need to use it?"

It's a bit like the table discussion, I guess: is it rude to sit at a table and read your book when people with food trays need somewhere to sit? Or if you've just taken money out of a cashpoint and you're standing in front of it having a chat when there are clearly other people waiting to use it. Same principle, really.

It's interesting, as I would see both of those situations as significantly different.

In the food trays scenario, if you are *just* sitting and reading a book, you are not using the [cafe / food court] tables for their primary purpose. In the cashpoint example, you are obstructing people from using something despite not using it yourself, which is rude.

In the parking situation, you are not doing either of those things. You are using the parking space for the purpose it is designed for, which isn't rude.

Of course some people are more or less able to park further away, and I think a lot of us have thought about what we personally would do in the situation - I don't see any allegations of laziness, just difference in personal approach.

It looks as if some of the disconnect is that you start from the premise that you don't need o be in the space once you have your food, and that others do need to be there. A lot of us are saying that while you don't need to be there, neither does anyone else - so it comes down to whether you want to inconvenience yourself (albeit only slightly) rather than to inconvenience someone else, for whom the inconvenience may be greater or lesser than it is for you. After all, moving the car to a different street isn't difficult, but it means you have a delay before you can eat, a greater risk of spilling something in a moving car, he small risk that the other street may not be as quiet as usual and the hassle of manoeuvering in and out of two spaces instead of one. None of those is a major inconvenience, but equally, having to wait for a space or to park further away are not major inconveniences, either

I don't think anyone is saying that it would be wrong to move, just that it is in no way rude not to.

I do think that if you (general you, not you personally) were on the other side of the scenario and were wanting to get into the space, it would be very rude to expect / demand that someone sitting in their car and eating should move.

The question is simply "is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need to be using when someone else would like to/may need to use it?"

It's a bit like the table discussion, I guess: is it rude to sit at a table and read your book when people with food trays need somewhere to sit? Or if you've just taken money out of a cashpoint and you're standing in front of it having a chat when there are clearly other people waiting to use it. Same principle, really.

It's interesting, as I would see both of those situations as significantly different.

In the food trays scenario, if you are *just* sitting and reading a book, you are not using the [cafe / food court] tables for their primary purpose. In the cashpoint example, you are obstructing people from using something despite not using it yourself, which is rude.

In the parking situation, you are not doing either of those things. You are using the parking space for the purpose it is designed for, which isn't rude.

Of course some people are more or less able to park further away, and I think a lot of us have thought about what we personally would do in the situation - I don't see any allegations of laziness, just difference in personal approach.

It looks as if some of the disconnect is that you start from the premise that you don't need o be in the space once you have your food, and that others do need to be there. A lot of us are saying that while you don't need to be there, neither does anyone else - so it comes down to whether you want to inconvenience yourself (albeit only slightly) rather than to inconvenience someone else, for whom the inconvenience may be greater or lesser than it is for you. After all, moving the car to a different street isn't difficult, but it means you have a delay before you can eat, a greater risk of spilling something in a moving car, he small risk that the other street may not be as quiet as usual and the hassle of manoeuvering in and out of two spaces instead of one. None of those is a major inconvenience, but equally, having to wait for a space or to park further away are not major inconveniences, either

I don't think anyone is saying that it would be wrong to move, just that it is in no way rude not to.

I do think that if you (general you, not you personally) were on the other side of the scenario and were wanting to get into the space, it would be very rude to expect / demand that someone sitting in their car and eating should move.

I'd have probably parked in the other lot, eaten inside or taken my food home. However, I don't think that someone who eats while in their spot is wrong, though I would say that if it was a handicapped space it would be more courteous to avoid picnicking there.

Logged

If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,Five things observe with care,To whom you speak,Of whom you speak,And how, and when, and where.Caroline Lake Ingalls

Your examples of the table and cash machine are both false equivalences. They would make for a good analogy IF 1) there were other tables, just slightly further away or 2) the cash machine was being used, just for something that is not an immediate need (checking balance of several accounts, which could be done via mobile app or something). And in neither of those situations would I find the person rude. Slightly annoying, perhaps, but not rude.

Logged

Most people look at musical theatre and think "Why are those people singing and dancing in the street?" I'm sort of the opposite. I see a street full of people and think, "Why aren't they?"

Yes, in the sense of whether they'd move or not, not in the sense of 'well you should have just walked around the block and why didn't you eat in the restaurant?' That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked, which it seems people don't grasp. It's a general question. Is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need just because you can?

Well yes - everyone hates circling to find a spot, so wouldn't it therefore be more polite to vacate one that you're occupying that you have no need of?

Eating in the car was just fine for this; it was a McDonald's breakfast muffin, not something you have to sit down to a table to eat with a knife and fork. Again though, wasn't part of the question I asked so I'm baffled as to why people are picking on my decision to do so.

I disagree that your decision is being "picked on". It isn't that you *should have* eaten in the restaurant, it is that others *would have.* i don't see the personal slight in that.

I recall a thread a while ago (which I now cannot find) where the OP changed a diaper on a car seat in the pouring rain rather than pull out of a parking space immediately. She was firmly taken to task b/c changing a diaper was not using the parking space for it's intended purpose. Now I'm hearing that eating in the car in a parking space *is* using it for the intended purpose. Of course, I have no memory of who was posting in the other thread, so it could be that there are just differences in opinion, but I see the two scenarios as entirely equivalent. Personally, I think taking longer than absolutely necessary for a limited resource may not be rude, but may be inconsiderate.

So, are eating in the car and changing a diaper on the seat equivalent? Would that alteration change anyone's opinion?

P.S. Apologies if I'm misremembering something about the previous thread. I looked for it to refresh my memory, but couldn't find it. There may have been another factor that made the situations less equal.

Well, like I say. I consider it extraordinarily rude to take your (you general) sweet time over things when other people are waiting for those things. Other people don't, that's fine.

Then why did you ask us?

And I don't think "eating my lunch at a reasonable pace" to be "taking my sweet time over things." That's just living your life.

And other people aren't waiting for that one, exclusive thing. They want *a* parking space. There are other parking spaces, what, 15 seconds away? They can park there.

I'd have gotten belligerent with you about it too, if you kept arguing with me that you wanted me to drive just a few feet away before I started eating.

Quote

I recall a thread a while ago (which I now cannot find) where the OP changed a diaper on a car seat in the pouring rain rather than pull out of a parking space immediately. She was firmly taken to task b/c changing a diaper was not using the parking space for it's intended purpose.

I can't believe that was the 90% consensus of EtiquetteHell. Sure, some people may have thought that--but I know for a fact that I wouldn't have said that, and I know that other people here wouldn't have either.

There are entirely equivalent, and both people are entitled to use the parking space until they're done parking and are ready to drive away.

Yes, in the sense of whether they'd move or not, not in the sense of 'well you should have just walked around the block and why didn't you eat in the restaurant?' That is completely irrelevant to the question I asked, which it seems people don't grasp. It's a general question. Is it inconsiderate to take up something you don't need just because you can?

Well yes - everyone hates circling to find a spot, so wouldn't it therefore be more polite to vacate one that you're occupying that you have no need of?

Eating in the car was just fine for this; it was a McDonald's breakfast muffin, not something you have to sit down to a table to eat with a knife and fork. Again though, wasn't part of the question I asked so I'm baffled as to why people are picking on my decision to do so.

But the distance is germane to the discussion - it's different if there's a load of other parks nearby as to whether it's more or less inconsiderate. I get that you have mobility issues, but if we are talking about a theoretical situation then that doesn't matter either. I really haven't seen anyone imply you are lazy, they are just saying what would go into their decision making process.

I actually don't think the distance is germane to the discussion.

I think the OP's contention is wrong no matter how far away the other parking spaces are. A person is not required to vacate a parking space before they eat their take-away lunch, change a baby's diaper, balance their checkbook, finish their argument, make a phone call. Whatever.

And to do so simply because other people want a parking space is completely unnecessary. To maintain that -not- doing so is rude or inconsiderate is flat-out wrong, and (in my opinion) silly.

I recall a thread a while ago (which I now cannot find) where the OP changed a diaper on a car seat in the pouring rain rather than pull out of a parking space immediately. She was firmly taken to task b/c changing a diaper was not using the parking space for it's intended purpose. Now I'm hearing that eating in the car in a parking space *is* using it for the intended purpose. Of course, I have no memory of who was posting in the other thread, so it could be that there are just differences in opinion, but I see the two scenarios as entirely equivalent. Personally, I think taking longer than absolutely necessary for a limited resource may not be rude, but may be inconsiderate.

So, are eating in the car and changing a diaper on the seat equivalent? Would that alteration change anyone's opinion?

P.S. Apologies if I'm misremembering something about the previous thread. I looked for it to refresh my memory, but couldn't find it. There may have been another factor that made the situations less equal.

The way I recalled the diaper thread. The car door was open and someone wanted to pull out/in the the next spot next to that op (and couldn't since the door was open) I think the consensus was that OP should have , hopped in and closed the door to let the other person park/leave then continue changing the diaper. It wasn't OP was changing a diaper but effectively taking 2 spots while someone else was trying to use the second spot.